The topic of persuasion is discussed extensively in Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive (Goldstein et. al., 2010), the book I chose to read for my book project, so I found this chapter to be an interesting overview of what I’ve been learning over the past few weeks. However, one concept, psychological reactance, wasn’t specifically addressed in Goldstein and his colleagues’ book, and I found it that much more exciting. Perhaps more importantly, I was amused by this concept because it basically sums up who I am in two words...at least that’s what my roommate would say. Jack Brehm defined this theory as our desire for the freedom to think, feel, and act however we would like. Furthermore, he argues that when we get the vibe that our freedom is being threatened, we act to maintain and/or restore it (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). These ideas are very descriptive of my behavior because I absolutely hate and reject being told what to do, what to choose, or how to evaluate something. In fact, I probably unnecessarily engage in “negative attitude change” with startling frequency. Negative attitude change refers our movement in the opposite direction of that which we feel is being forced on us (Heller et. al., 1973). At times, I even contradict my own previously held opinions if I feel like they weren’t wholly grounded in my own decisions/thoughts. Anyone who is present while I’m getting ready to go out will understand exactly how these concepts influence my behavior. Although it is normal for girls to call their friends and ask advice about what to wear, it isn’t normal to completely ignore their advice. Oftentimes, I ask my roommate for advice about an outfit I’ve thrown together, and she provides extremely opinionated and specific feedback. For example, she’ll explain that the shoes I’m wearing don’t match because (insert reason here). If she’s really adamant about her opinion or says, “Don’t wear those two things together,” I have an overwhelming urge to wear those two things together, and I usually do. In these cases, even though I asked for her advice, I still feel restricted to choose what she advises and it drives me crazy enough that I usually reject her advice. I know it isn’t just me being stubborn because I never ask for her advice after I’ve already decided which course of action I’d prefer (e.g. I want to wear the black shoes, but I should see what she has to say). These days, when I ask her for her opinion about something, she begins by saying, “I know you’ll probably just do the opposite anyways, but...”
Going beyond psychological reactance, I want to talk about some individuals differences that affect the persuadability of one’s audience. It seems to me like there are a lot of factors that can create an extremely diverse audience. As an example, both one’s degree of self-monitoring (Snyder & DeBVono, 1985) and need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) influence his/her susceptibility to different types of messages (i.e. central, peripheral). Self-monitoring refers to the regulatory effects one’s concern with his/her public appearance has on their behavior, while need for cognition describes the amount individuals enjoy effortful cognitive activities. Although there are plenty of other variables, it is evident that these two fluctuate on an extremely wide continuum, creating audiences that must be impossible to persuade by exploiting one personality trait (e.g. high self monitors). Do messages take advantage of the research that shows that people high in need for cognition are more influenced by central messages, whereas those low in need for cognition are affected by peripheral messages? Personally, I don’t think it would be very effective to target any of these personality variables unless the messenger was sure that their audience was similar enough that the message wouldn’t persuade someone while un-persuading someone else...
References:
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Yes! 50 Scientifically proven ways to be persuasive. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Heller, J. F., Pallak, M. S., & Picek, J. M. (1973). The interactive effects of intent and threat on boomerang attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 273-279.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 586-597.
No comments:
Post a Comment